[ODATA-299] Should Duration be renamed DayTimeDuration in anticipation that we may wish to add YearMonthDuration at a later point? - OASIS Technical Committees Issue Tracker

XML

Word

Printable

Proposal:

Hide

Close with no action.

The general consensus in naming this "Duration" was that the likelihood of adding yearMonthDuration in the future was low enough that we should optimize for simplicity in the more common dayTimeDuration by calling it simply Duration.

Accepted: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/48622/odata-meeting-30_on-20130321-minutes.html#odata-299

Show
Close with no action. The general consensus in naming this "Duration" was that the likelihood of adding yearMonthDuration in the future was low enough that we should optimize for simplicity in the more common dayTimeDuration by calling it simply Duration. Accepted: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/48622/odata-meeting-30_on-20130321-minutes.html#odata-299

XML schema defines both dayTimeDuration and yearMonthDuration.

If we anticipate that we may wish to add CSDL support for YearMonthDuration later, then perhaps Duration should be renamed to DayTimeDuation now.

(Note for comparison how we renamed Point to GeographyPoint, since there is also GeometryPoint)